Newlan v. President & Trustees of Aurora, 17 Ill. 379 (1856)

June 1856 · Illinois Supreme Court

17 Ill. 379

Thomas Newlan, Appellant, v. The President and Trustees of the Town of Aurora, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM KENDALL.

In an action of debt for violating of a town ordinance, against selling liquor, in order to justify a recovery, it should be shown that the liquor had been sold, after the ordinance took effect.

This was a suit brought by the appellees against the appellant, on 17th day of December, 1853, before a justice of the peace, to recover certain penalties for the alleged violation of alleged ordinances of the town of Aurora—for selling liquor— and brought by appeal and change of venue to the Circuit Court of Kendall county, and tried at September term, 1855, before Hollister, Judge, and a jury. Judgment of $100 against appellant.

Plaintiffs below proved “ the sale by defendant, within the limits of the town Aurora, of whisky and beer, at various times,” (the proof does not show ivhen.')

Day and Parks, for Appellant. .

R. G-. Morton, for Appellees.

Skinner, J.

This was an action of debt, brought by the Trustees of the town of Aurora, against Newlan, to recover penalties for alleged violations of an ordinance of said town, passed June 30th, 1853, and providing: “ that any person who shall sell within the limits of the corporation of the town of Aurora, any whisky or beer, or any other alcoholic or intoxicating drinks, in any quantity, shall be fined for every offence twenty-five dollars.”

The bill of exceptions states, that on the trial, u the plaintiffs proved the sale by the defendant, within the limits of the corporation of the town of Aurora, of whisky and beer, at various times.”

It does not appear when the sales were made, and without some evidence tending to show a sale after the ordinance took effect, the plaintiffs in no view of the case could recover. The Circuit Court should therefore have granted a new trial, the finding of the jury against the defendant being without evidence to justify it.

No opinion is expressed as to the validity of the ordinance.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.